Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New MSNBC idea: Let’s interview a five-year-old to get her take on gay marriage

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
What I'm getting at is that if you don't feel an attraction towards men, you won't naturally desire them. You won't become sexually aroused by them in the same way that you won't become sexually aroused by a dog or a turtle.

Bisexuality disagrees with you


Actually Bisexuality is absolute proof of what DestroyDestroyDestroy said! Bisexuals have an attraction to BOTH SEXES! How does that negate Destroys' statement?




posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
This is all sorts of wrong. Same sex oriented discussions and content which goes against the natural procreation method (something THAT CAN be explained simplistically to a 5 year old) should be off limits point blank period.


Originally posted by intrepid
Makes perfect sense to me. Get the opinion of someone before they are corrupted by bigotry and religious intolerance.
edit on 8-4-2013 by intrepid because: Speeling.


Wow! I'm really surprised this got so many stars. The only "opinions" she should be having at age 5 should be on topics such as what's the best flavor of ice cream or how to make the best mud pie.
edit on 9-4-2013 by TrueMessiah because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-4-2013 by TrueMessiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by wiser3

Originally posted by resoe26

Originally posted by chiefsmom
I understand that this little girl may be different, because of who her parents are, but come on, how many "average" 5 year olds even know what gay means?


exactly. Most 5 year olds are too busy being children to even think of that sort of thing.

-I have a feeling though, by the time I hit 30 years old, there will be a hell of a lot more homosexuals than there are today.
-


Let me guess.. that should be in about 15 years time right?

Also regarding your first response take ten 5 year old boys OR girls and show them a picture of a man and a woman kissing and guess what...EEEEWWW! Thats the response you will get to it whether male/female, male/male, female/female!!!
edit on 9/4/13 by wiser3 because: (no reason given)


Call me strange man, but I didn't think it was wierd. I was kissing girls in kindergarten. Had "girlfriends" then.

I still remember thier names. I was never ewwww about it. but I can assure you that if I had seen 2 men kissing.... my response would have been "wtf....ewwwww".
---I don't think children should even KNOW about homosexuality at that age. And still probably the majority of them don't. And if they do, it is probably making fun of them.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueMessiah
This is all sorts of wrong. Same sex oriented discussions and content which goes against the natural procreation method (something THAT CAN be explained simplistically to a 5 year old) should be off limits point blank period.


Originally posted by intrepid
Makes perfect sense to me. Get the opinion of someone before they are corrupted by bigotry and religious intolerance.
edit on 8-4-2013 by intrepid because: Speeling.


Wow! I'm really surprised this got so many stars. The only "opinions" she should be having at age 5 should be on topics such as what's the best flavor of ice cream or how to make the best mud pie.
edit on 9-4-2013 by TrueMessiah because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-4-2013 by TrueMessiah because: (no reason given)



I cannot believe how many people are thinking this is ok.

It seems no matter what the topic is on ATS, if it involves homosexuality at all, People are with it 100%.
The pro-gay crowd has drank the kool-aid.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by resoe26
---I don't think children should even KNOW about homosexuality at that age.


If they know about heterosexuality, I don't see why they shouldn't know about homosexuality...




And if they do, it is probably making fun of them.


And where did they learn that behavior? From their bigoted parents, most likely.


Originally posted by resoe26
It seems no matter what the topic is on ATS, if it involves homosexuality at all, People are with it 100%.


SOME people support equality. And no matter what the topic is on ATS, if it involves homosexuality at all, SOME are against equality.

We're all entitled to our opinions.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
you are just supporting the main stream liberal agenda

Depends on what the issue is. In some areas, yes..100%. in some areas, not so much, and in some areas, opposition. Issue by issue. Scoially, I am highly liberal, fiscally, I am conservative/responsible minded. pay for what you do type thing.


wanting the govt to intervene in every move and action

nonsense. this shows you have no actual understanding of proper liberalism...(hint, its in the name)



You seem to think the govt can solve social issues like gay marriage,

They can, that's why they are elected. smart laws to force equality in areas that the state is involved in. segregation, gay marriage, women voting..yes..the government can solve these issues.
Acceptance? church actually marrying gay people? no..thats for the people. but the legal framework starts and stops with the government.


or better yet govt fixing disagreements on the whole topic. lol, you along with most liberals have lost your way on this if you think that is the case.

No, disagreements is part of the people..we can disagree on many things. but governments job is to make sure that the framework for legal issues is equal. Government is not passing edicts that require you to like gays, different races, or women..they are simply passing laws that equal the rights of the various groups. Its your right as a citizen to freely hate, love, or feel indifferent about whatever you want.


states and local govt to decide since not all regions in the U.S. will think like you do

Incorrect here. states should not decide who gets rights and who doesn't. You and I actually think alike on the subject here though. Ron Paul believed such stuff should be completely out of the governments hands. I agree.its a religious institution.
But since its not..since there are tax breaks, many legal things, etc..state run, then it is then required to serve equally. No different than a different color of skin here


Don't even try to preach to me what you think "freedom and democracy" is.

I have the freedom to speak my mind..so ya, I will try..and do. your choice to listen or not



unfit parent. How sad of you sir. That's just pathetic.

Actually, didn't say you. said anyone whom doesn't teach morality and principles. You should stop wanting to be offended and actually read what is being written.
I disagree fully with your notion that you should not broach the subject of social realities to a child of any age (within context of their age). They can grow up immune or shocked when they first hear about their friend with two moms or whatever...to not teach them a reality of the land makes them unprepared and will then be taught by someone else in their way.


So. without me even giving my *personal* stance on religion in this thread since it is un-related to the topic at hand, you choose to give your view of the subject as it somehow relates to gay marriage?

Was responding to your mock outrage comparing no religion taught with accepting the rights of others in their private life. you were the one that went off the rails into absurdism, I simply responded of the difference between the two subjects.



"If you believe it's perfectly acceptable not to teach your child that gay marriage is good and proper by the age of 5, then you are an immoral person not deserving of acceptance from our society and an unfit parent. You must conform to my beliefs (societies), or else you and your child are hateful and fearful people."

That about sums it up.

No, that is wildly off point. you don't have to accept its good or proper..you must accept that people should lead their lives how they want so long as it harms none. To this, damn right I got an agenda..leave me alone and I will leave you alone agenda. If I want to marry a consenting adult, then my neighbors have not a damn thing to say about it, period..and anyone giving a different opinion is -wrong-..black and white, day and night here..one of the very few things that is binary in its principles.
You don't have to like it. personally, I find the idea of gay marriage both unattractive (as I am straight), and ridiculous considering its a bit pointless and it is a corruption of religion...so until we get a viable ron paul get the government out of all marriage proposal, then its all about equality..even to the people we don't necessarily like.

and -that- is the message, and one I will most certainly spread..to you, your son, my family, and anyone whom will listen.
and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it...because that's another thing us wacky libs believe in...the liberty to speak our minds.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by resoe26
It seems no matter what the topic is on ATS, if it involves homosexuality at all, People are with it 100%.
The pro-gay crowd has drank the kool-aid.


its the pro equality crowd..get it right.

and its actually diet wild cherry pepsi. the stuff is addicting.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I agree with your post. Children shouldn't be interviewed on marriage equality (or any other political issue for that matter) since they don't understand what they're talking about. Of course, the same can go for the people who oppose marriage equality. Some of them somehow manage to even misunderstand this issue at it's most basic level.
edit on 9-4-2013 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by resoe26
 


So you were kissing girls in Kindergarten and I in Kindergarten knew that I was not like most of the other male kids that I was mixing with, I didn't know quite what it was but I KNEW that I was different to them because I wasn't trying to kiss girls or take a peek up their dresses! Does that make me wrong? But of course when I was in kindergarten, 50 years ago, homosexuality was soooo deep in the closet and so damned and hidden that I didn't know what was wrong with me until after High School by which I time I had become totally reserved and withdrawn and I to this day still struggle mixing with "normal" people and prefer to just stay at home in my safe little cocoon where most "anti-gay", anti-equality (Thanks to you SaturnFX!) people would like me to be! But why should I and why should the children of today have to grow up limited the way I had to? And Yes, I HAD TO there was no choice!
edit on 10/4/13 by wiser3 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/4/13 by wiser3 because: spelling. As usual!
edit on 10/4/13 by wiser3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by resoe26
It seems no matter what the topic is on ATS, if it involves homosexuality at all, People are with it 100%.
The pro-gay crowd has drank the kool-aid.


its the pro equality crowd..get it right.

and its actually diet wild cherry pepsi. the stuff is addicting.


What does your "pro-equality" have anything to do with interviewing a 5 year old over adult matters?
I understand pro-equality, and I'm all for it. (because miserable marriage should be available for all :lol


But a 5 year old shouldn't be interviewed on national television over homosexuality. Bottom line.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by wiser3
 


Let me ask you a question though (out of my own curiosity), what made you start being gay? I simply don't understand really, and I know I could never fully understand anyways. But maybe you can enlighten me somewhat. See I have no problem with homosexuals whatsoever, never did. To each thier own.
--I'm sorry you had to hide yourself from others and are still having trouble with it. It must have been awful man. Hope all gets well soon though.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by resoe26
 


Would it shock you or shake your world to try and believe me when I say "I was born this way!"?

Because that's all I can remember, I have an older sister and a younger brother, both married with children, me gay/single and thats how I was from as far back as my memories go! My brother and I were the best of friends we did the same things, had the same friends all our lives and we still do but there is one major difference between him and I and it was never through an incident in my lifetime or a choice that I made! Thats how I was born and that is how I will die! By the way, thank you for asking and taking the time to read! Many wouldn't!
That's how I roll! Hehe!
edit on 10/4/13 by wiser3 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/4/13 by wiser3 because: (no reason given)


I wanted to add on topic that I too do not believe in using children in any way to further ones' own opinion on any matter. The child must be allowed to develop in it's own way in it's own direction! I must say that even growing up in a very different era when this subject was very much taboo my parents were incredible and supported me, never making any attempt to have me "fixed", I can't imagine what my life would have been like if they had wanted to change me to conform to societies perception of normal!
edit on 10/4/13 by wiser3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   
People still watch MSNBC? Back to the topic at hand. I know quite a few adults that do not have a grasp on the concept of marriage, or love for that matter. Yet, this brilliant journalist has the gall and audacity to ask about marriage and love with a five-year-old? Even if the child may be her own? It is still wrong! The hacks at MSNBC must have had a slow news day? Why clutter a child's plate with this nonsense? Why not talk about "My Little Pony," "Transformers," playing at the park, going fishing, or coloring? You know stuff that children are interested in, and leave this BS to the adults. Better yet, why not let the children learn about this things in time, and when they are ready? They have plenty of time to be adults, and childhood is fleeting. There will come a time when a child will confront their parents and ask them about all of this?

You know the birds and the bees, relationships, and so and so forth. Why jeopardize their innocence with stuff like this, or anything we adults deliberate about? The only thing the little girl needs to worry about right now is what games she is going to play with her friends, coloring, what cartoon to watch, and many other things children itemize their time with. These children should not be used as props and robots to sway opinions or spur agendas! It is selfish, cruel, and downright abusive. Anybody remember those propaganda clips with Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler surrounded by children? There is more to this paradigm than John and Paul or Jane and Sue jumping the broom!



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakes51
Why clutter a child's plate with this nonsense? Why not talk about "My Little Pony," "Transformers," playing at the park, going fishing, or coloring? You know stuff that children are interested in, and leave this BS to the adults. Better yet, why not let the children learn about this things in time, and when they are ready? They have plenty of time to be adults, and childhood is fleeting.


Is a child too young when they are starting school to find out that their friend may have a mummy and daddy?

No, that seems normal..
now, what if that same child, whom knows only about mummy and daddy dynamics meets a friend whom only has a mummy, or a daddy? the child will be confused as the parents never discussed how different familys have different setups sometimes.
and then some have two daddys (many here..remarriage), some have two mummys, and just two daddys, and some have none due to orphan situations.

This is not cluttering the mind of a kid..the kid already has a understanding of parents..guardians..what is being discussed is perspective of love being a qualifier moreso than any specific setup requirement.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by resoe26
 



Originally posted by resoe26
what made you start being gay?


The same thing that made you start being straight.

The problem is that some people think we're all born straight and at some point, a decision is made to be gay or an experience "turns" someone gay. And that's NOT what happens. Most gay people will tell you that they knew at a very young age (about the age small children start having "crushes" on older people) that something was "different" from what they were seeing in the world around them. Perhaps a young boy (kindergarten) feels like he has a crush on a male teacher or other adult figure.

As a woman, I remember my first crush and it was on a man who was friends with my older brother. Being gay doesn't start anywhere, unless you count before the child is born.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by resoe26
 



Originally posted by resoe26
What does your "pro-equality" have anything to do with interviewing a 5 year old over adult matters?


Equality isn't an adult matter. They weren't discussing sex, they were discussing marriage and equality.



But a 5 year old shouldn't be interviewed on national television over homosexuality.


Again, they weren't talking about homosexuality. They were talking about equality and marriage.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





nonsense. this shows you have no actual understanding of proper liberalism...(hint, its in the name)


Oh no quite the opposite, I know what the name means but the party sure as hell doesn't seem to represent it very well these days. The answer to this new version of "liberty" is to give the govt more control over our lives like the mayor Bloomberg example by banning sugary drinks cause "govt knows best!". The "liberal" movement is a joke these days.




They can, that's why they are elected. smart laws to force equality in areas that the state is involved in. segregation, gay marriage, women voting..yes..the government can solve these issues. Acceptance? church actually marrying gay people? no..thats for the people. but the legal framework starts and stops with the government.


The government can pass as many laws (WAY too many now IMO) as they want and as I stated, everyone should have equal rights, no more, no less. It's the "liberal" movement these days that seem to think it's never enough. We need to also have special parades, special months dedicated, grants for college that leave others out (not very EQUAL IMO) etc AND if someone doesn't accept it? Shunned!! It's pathetic, and you get the drift.




No, disagreements is part of the people..we can disagree on many things. but governments job is to make sure that the framework for legal issues is equal. Government is not passing edicts that require you to like gays, different races, or women..they are simply passing laws that equal the rights of the various groups. Its your right as a citizen to freely hate, love, or feel indifferent about whatever you want.


In context to what I said, this more or less applies to the above discussion. The govt is not capable of changing opinion or morals and lifestyles people choose to live. It can ONLY pass laws. Labeling someone "hateful" or "loving" because they disagree or agree with what YOU think is quite naive and judgmental to boot. This is not accepted by "Christians" and it sure as hell shouldn't be accepted by "liberals".Of course, as long as it fits your agenda, im sure you'll disagree.




Incorrect here. states should not decide who gets rights and who doesn't. You and I actually think alike on the subject here though. Ron Paul believed such stuff should be completely out of the governments hands. I agree.its a religious institution. But since its not..since there are tax breaks, many legal things, etc..state run, then it is then required to serve equally. No different than a different color of skin here


Do you believe churches should be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples even if it's against what they believe? If you do, then this is the main point I disagree with you strongly on concerning this. Guess what group would be responsible for this "law" if it came to pass? You guessed it, the loving "liberals".




I have the freedom to speak my mind..so ya, I will try..and do. your choice to listen or not


Ditto, but you're the one who accused those who disagree with forcing (the subject of) gay marriage on a 5 y/o to push a political agenda, with not teaching their kids "freedom and democracy". Can you see how this would slightly taint ones perspective on what your version of freedom and democracy is? Sounds to me like you don't advocate the freedom of others to disagree with you before you label them as "hateful" and such.




I disagree fully with your notion that you should not broach the subject of social realities to a child of any age (within context of their age). They can grow up immune or shocked when they first hear about their friend with two moms or whatever...to not teach them a reality of the land makes them unprepared and will then be taught by someone else in their way.


You're very much entitled to those opinions, but once again your version of morals and reality may or may not match that of anothers version. This is no reason to get high and mighty while accusing others of being "unfit parents". Your utopia is another mans version of Hell.




Was responding to your mock outrage comparing no religion taught with accepting the rights of others in their private life. you were the one that went off the rails into absurdism, I simply responded of the difference between the two subjects.


I simply see no difference between the judemental hypocritical nature of the Christian movement in America than I do with the "liberal" movement. Both have been equally out of hand when it comes to judging and not loving others as they so love to preach. I don't know a single "liberal" who isn't foaming at the mouth when it comes to Christians. Oh, there is NO love there my friend.


Since I haven't enough room to post the really long last paragraph, I will just say that it was a whole lot of text just to basically say you disagree with me and that you think its totally cool to drag a 5 year old into a topic he/she doesn't know the first thing about and for a blatant political agenda.
edit on 10-4-2013 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-4-2013 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Wookiep
 



Originally posted by Wookiep
Ditto, but you're the one who accused those who disagree with forcing gay marriage on a 5 y/o with not teaching their kids "freedom and democracy".


I see this charge often of "forcing" gay marriage on someone... How did this mother "force" this on the child? I saw no force whatsoever. The child seemed genuinely eager to answer the questions and even curious about others opinions.

And no one is "forcing" gay marriage on anyone else. Unless they're forcing someone to get married, there's no force being applied here.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


She very much forced the subject of gay marriage on that child. (for political agenda) Perhaps I should have clarified the "subject" in the wording. There is no way that kid knows the first thing about it. No amount of repeating how much kids know about "love" will convince me.
edit on 10-4-2013 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Is a child too young when they are starting school to find out that their friend may have a mummy and daddy?

No, that seems normal..
now, what if that same child, whom knows only about mummy and daddy dynamics meets a friend whom only has a mummy, or a daddy? the child will be confused as the parents never discussed how different familys have different setups sometimes.
and then some have two daddys (many here..remarriage), some have two mummys, and just two daddys, and some have none due to orphan situations.

This is not cluttering the mind of a kid..the kid already has a understanding of parents..guardians..what is being discussed is perspective of love being a qualifier moreso than any specific setup requirement.


Let the child ask their parents or parent about so and so's mommy and daddy, daddy, mom, dad and dad, or mom and mom. Chances are the kid will not even notice it, because they are busy playing, watching cartoons, and doing other stuff that kids do. I think this matter should be discussed at the discretion of parents, or asked as a question by the child. It is not the business of schools, journalists, or politicians to inform them about it.

Furthermore, that display by MSNBC may have appeared to be innocent and light-hearted? However, I saw it completely different. I saw an adult using a child as a prop to push an agenda. Plain and simple! If you saw something else? Great! Please permit me to agree to disagree with your rationale. Lets try to allow our children to enjoy as much of their childhood as possible. It goes by fast, and they will have a whole lifetime to sort this out as we are doing right now. Thanks for the reply!





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join